August 2016

Jul 16, 2014

Does yesterday's rout of Berger Jr. show weakness in the local and state GOP establishment, or was it more a reflection on a candidate who grew less attractive to voters the better they got to know him?

Surely a 17% drop in votes between primary and run-off bespeaks a certain lack of passion for the man.

Walker ran an impressive grassroots campaign and deserves all credit for that. And some prominent local Republican officials were Walkerites, so the establishment wasn't monolithic in any case.

Maybe it was just hubris by the machine to try promoting Berger Jr. so rapidly in the family business. Will that have lasting consequences?

The next test for the establishment will be its ability to rally behind the man they trashed so energetically for the past couple of months.

And as I've said before, the members of the true GOP base, the people who turn out for EVERY election, do not, generally speaking, care what the Chamber of Commerce has to say.

Even if, as I believe is the case, the Democrats have learned a little from 2010 about what happens when you stay home during the midterms (and, from 1998, what can happen if you show up), this is a district in which electoral demography alone probably is destiny. Walker and his jihadism are going to Washington, and he's probably safe at least until the 2022 election. I'd love to be wrong, but I don't think so.

Fjeld was quick to release the statement below. For me, it's a strong "NO thanks" in response to her invitation. The two Republican camps will pull together like siblings that fought but that are still brothers in the end - with core values of smaller federal government, cutting wasteful spending/bureaucracy and encouraging private sector job creation.

Fjeld Statement on Republican Primary

Mark Walker won the bitter Republican runoff tonight by appealing to far-right Tea Party voters.

Democratic congressional candidate Laura Fjeld welcomed Republican supporters of Phil Berger Jr. to join her campaign, stating, “Those mainstream Republican voters who are disappointed with their extremist nominee have a home in my campaign. I represent mainstream North Carolina values, and will work with Republicans, Independents, and Democrats to create jobs and improve education.”

Laura outlined the differences between her and Walker, stating, “Mark Walker is a radical extremist who doesn’t share the values of North Carolinians. He wants to raise taxes on millions of working families. Walker believes that women who are the victim of rape or incest should be forced to carry the resulting pregnancy. Walker would even outlaw some forms of birth control. This is 2014, we should be talking about jobs, not banning birth control.”

Laura concluded by stating that, “Walker’s extremism has blinded him from the issues that matter. I am laser focused on the issues people care about: creating jobs, fixing our roads, improving our schools, and cutting wasteful spending. I will work with both sides, be a consensus builder, and get the results we need to help families here in North Carolina. I will work to end the Washington gridlock while Mark Walker’s extremism will make it worse. I will be a voice for everyone; Mark Walker will be a voice only for the most extreme segment of our society.”

I'll bet Fjeld targeted this message to independents. I doubt she really believes that mainstream Republicans will vote for her rather than Walker. Personalities aside, there was very little difference between Berger fils and Walker on the issues.

I don't have that impression and I will be supporting Mark in the November election. Also Phil was very clear in his support for Mark in his concession speech. I think prior comments by both camps had more to do with various accusations and retorts.

"On no legal basis, all 4.5 million residents of the five U.S. territories were quietly released from ObamaCare. It seems the costs of healthcare soared in these five territories due to uneconomic mandates - which would have been a disaster PR-wise for the administration and so, under cover of catastrophe, WSJ reports all of a sudden last week HHS discovered new powers after "a careful review of this situation and the relevant statutory language," that enabled them to 'selectively exempt' American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, Northern Mariana Islands, and Virgin Islands from Obamacare.

reports,

The original House and Senate bills that became the Affordable Care Act included funding for insurance exchanges in these territories, as President Obama promised when as a Senator he campaigned in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and other 2008 Democratic primaries. But the $14.5 billion in subsidies for the territories were dumped in 2010 as ballast when Democrats needed to claim the law reduced the deficit."

They should get together with you on your economic strategic wisdom Andrew.

One would think that if Hartzman wants to introduce a new topic, he should post it on his own blog. But in case Ed lets this thread move in a new direction, I'll just note two things. First, Hartzman's quoting from a WSJ editorial, for pete's sake. Second, the Obamacare mess in U.S. territories is a screw-up of program design, not "economic strategy wisdom."

It shouldn't need to be said, but for Hartzman's benefit: I'm opposed to screw-ups in program design.

The fix, in this case, is to make the law more Obamacare-y, not less, in the U.S. territories: "Igisomar thinks the very best solution is actually expanding the health-care law, not delaying it. He wants Congress to re-open the Affordable Care Act and include the territories in the individual mandate and subsidy provisions."

For sure we need serious efforts to control health-care costs — which we seem to be getting in Medicare, but face relentless Republican demagoguery.

Finally, whenever someone warns about the supposedly unsupportable costs of entitlements decades into the future, you should ask why, exactly, it’s urgent that we solve that conjectural future problem now — and why it has any bearing at all on current fiscal issues. Don’t say that it’s obvious; it isn’t, and in fact deficit scolds bob and weave when confronted with that question.

But the deficit scolds do love their looming disaster, and they love making tough proposals that someone always involve sacrifices by the little people.